You may be right on per capita use, however if one considers only within state generated capacity, like water california is an over consumer
What's with this "may" be right stuff? Look at the data. Regarding California's use of water, "over consumer" is a matter of opinion. The state uses a lot of water, but it also has a lot of water. Snow pack in the Sierra is usually massive, except in drought years when it is only gigantic. In the Southern California mountains, within two hours of Los Angeles, I have had snow over eleven feet deep in my driveway. But, Southern California is a desert, and a lot of that water evaporates during the summer. Remember the Colorado River? Big river, lots of water most of the time. Flows along the border of California and irrigates the agricultural fields in the Imperial Valley and elsewhere. The IV and the San Joaquin Valley both use great gobs of water. If they didn't use that water, much of the rest of the country would go hungry. California is the largest agricultural producer and shipper in the country. The state's ag production is greater than that of most countries. The state is still a political and regulatory nightmare, run by idiots elected by other idiots. But it produces an awful lot of food with the water it consumes. Most of the other 49 states could legitimately be called over consumers of food because they don't produce enough to support their population. And does this have anything to do with the elimination of lead smelting in the U.S.? Hell no, but I'm tired of listening to misinformation.
